I am a paying supporter and I am considering to stop paying. This policy is a) dumb b) unenforceable. I pay them for infrastructure and service, not for some pseudo-moral ideas about how I should write my code. My code is as little of their concern, as things happening in my own house.
Same, and for the same reason, I considered the same when they added the "content related to cryptocurrency or blockchain technologies" clause as well, though I do not see the value in these technologies.
I will add that the policy is not just dumb and unenforceable, it is also poorly reasoned. Many of the arguments apply equally to other technologies, or don't apply to AI-generated code in the first place.
If resource usage/hardware costs are a concern, should games and databases be banned? If financial ethics are a concern, should SaaS services/apps with micro-transactions be banned? If ownership is a concern, should closed-source software or private repos be banned? And so on.
I think it is obvious that this choice, much like the crypto/blockchain choice, was made purely because of the "vibes" (if you will) around AI, and not for any logical reason.
Nah - all my repos are private, they mostly contain my configs and I am not paying money to read these insanities about tools I use.
As much as I like paying to escape a capitalistic monstrosity such as github, they still seem to be more … mentally stable, for the lack of a better term. At least you are not at a whim of some BDFL or an aggressive minority of radicals. It is quite sad, that we have a choice of enshittifaction and radicalization only, with nothing in between just providing good service to paying customers.
It is quite sad, that we have a choice of enshittifaction and radicalization only (...)
Maybe this is a question of point of view? I find github's stance on slop extremely radical (and totally contrary to my own values). At the same time, github is obviously enshittified, so I don's see the point in using it anymore.
You still have gitlab, which is some kind of middle ground. And if you only need to store private config files, you can host a private instance of forgejo--or a bare git repo--for much less than a sourcehut subscription. I hope you find your place! (still, I'm curious why your config files are AI slop, but that is another subject)
It just sucks having to pick between two extremes.
I moved to SourceHut from Github when their site stopped functioning without a JITed JavaScript engine or when you block certain AI elements. The bloat just got insane. Now it seems like I have to move again since SourceHut moved too far in the other extreme by embracing "minimalism" not only of their service but also of their users.
you can [self-]host
I used GitHub and then SourceHut precisely so I don't have to do this.
For a simple reason - I may one-shoot an emacs function (or several) I need for my config with claude. So, it is technically slope. I am also against self-hosting - I don’t have time and patience for it. IT is not a valuable hobby for me anymore, with LLM or without.
I am a paying supporter and I am considering to stop paying.
Great, they said they will give you plenty of time and support to do so. I respect their decision, not everyone is allowed to do everything on every platform. By choosing a Github, you invariably support a whole set of other things through their owners. It's not a bad thing to be forced to consider the long term impacts of your choices. If this was a bad decision, the market will say so.
But I mean, I never used Sourcehub. With this stance, I respect them even more, so maybe I'll start paying. Guess that cancels you out!
Good luck. Just be prepared to deal with other “great” ideas down the line, because when I subscribed such bullsh*t was not in terms. Fortunately, my renewal was due on 28.08 (I am not making it up) so I was able to cancel. I pay for services, not performance artistry.
As I already said: not interested in radicals and/or personalities — they are doomed to fail. I only pay for services provided. Sourcehut was a minimalistic service fitting to my minimalistic personal needs. Not anymore. Good riddance, sourcehut!
Eventually you'll realize that it's performance artistry all the way up and down. Don't you think that GitHub and its owners are engaged in high stakes lobbying and spending tens/hundreds of millions swinging politics their way (i.e. for their own profits, not yours)? Haven't you paid attention to the US presidential inauguration, who was attending it, and all the dealings before and after that?
If we can go as far as agreeing that this sucks, and that taking no stance only serves to reinforce the establishment of a technocratic authoritarianism, then paying attention to politics and who's at the losing end of what becomes a matter of survival.
Comments
I am a paying supporter and I am considering to stop paying. This policy is a) dumb b) unenforceable. I pay them for infrastructure and service, not for some pseudo-moral ideas about how I should write my code. My code is as little of their concern, as things happening in my own house.
Same, and for the same reason, I considered the same when they added the "content related to cryptocurrency or blockchain technologies" clause as well, though I do not see the value in these technologies.
I will add that the policy is not just dumb and unenforceable, it is also poorly reasoned. Many of the arguments apply equally to other technologies, or don't apply to AI-generated code in the first place.
If resource usage/hardware costs are a concern, should games and databases be banned? If financial ethics are a concern, should SaaS services/apps with micro-transactions be banned? If ownership is a concern, should closed-source software or private repos be banned? And so on.
I think it is obvious that this choice, much like the crypto/blockchain choice, was made purely because of the "vibes" (if you will) around AI, and not for any logical reason.
You are literally paying them to be concerned about your code.
Paying to store my code, not paying for them to police who or what wrote it or assisted in writing it.
Nah - all my repos are private, they mostly contain my configs and I am not paying money to read these insanities about tools I use.
As much as I like paying to escape a capitalistic monstrosity such as github, they still seem to be more … mentally stable, for the lack of a better term. At least you are not at a whim of some BDFL or an aggressive minority of radicals. It is quite sad, that we have a choice of enshittifaction and radicalization only, with nothing in between just providing good service to paying customers.
Maybe this is a question of point of view? I find github's stance on slop extremely radical (and totally contrary to my own values). At the same time, github is obviously enshittified, so I don's see the point in using it anymore.
You still have gitlab, which is some kind of middle ground. And if you only need to store private config files, you can host a private instance of forgejo--or a bare git repo--for much less than a sourcehut subscription. I hope you find your place! (still, I'm curious why your config files are AI slop, but that is another subject)
It just sucks having to pick between two extremes.
I moved to SourceHut from Github when their site stopped functioning without a JITed JavaScript engine or when you block certain AI elements. The bloat just got insane. Now it seems like I have to move again since SourceHut moved too far in the other extreme by embracing "minimalism" not only of their service but also of their users.
I used GitHub and then SourceHut precisely so I don't have to do this.
For a simple reason - I may one-shoot an emacs function (or several) I need for my config with claude. So, it is technically slope. I am also against self-hosting - I don’t have time and patience for it. IT is not a valuable hobby for me anymore, with LLM or without.
I guess, back to github :)
Great, they said they will give you plenty of time and support to do so. I respect their decision, not everyone is allowed to do everything on every platform. By choosing a Github, you invariably support a whole set of other things through their owners. It's not a bad thing to be forced to consider the long term impacts of your choices. If this was a bad decision, the market will say so.
But I mean, I never used Sourcehub. With this stance, I respect them even more, so maybe I'll start paying. Guess that cancels you out!
Good luck. Just be prepared to deal with other “great” ideas down the line, because when I subscribed such bullsh*t was not in terms. Fortunately, my renewal was due on 28.08 (I am not making it up) so I was able to cancel. I pay for services, not performance artistry.
If you think that with Drew, you only paid for services, you have been willfully ignoring his advocacy since the inception of Sourcehut
As I already said: not interested in radicals and/or personalities — they are doomed to fail. I only pay for services provided. Sourcehut was a minimalistic service fitting to my minimalistic personal needs. Not anymore. Good riddance, sourcehut!
Eventually you'll realize that it's performance artistry all the way up and down. Don't you think that GitHub and its owners are engaged in high stakes lobbying and spending tens/hundreds of millions swinging politics their way (i.e. for their own profits, not yours)? Haven't you paid attention to the US presidential inauguration, who was attending it, and all the dealings before and after that?
If we can go as far as agreeing that this sucks, and that taking no stance only serves to reinforce the establishment of a technocratic authoritarianism, then paying attention to politics and who's at the losing end of what becomes a matter of survival.